Santorum voices support for SOPA-like Internet regulation

posted at 2:50 pm on January 9, 2012 by Tina Korbe

At a campaign stop this weekend, in-the-spotlight GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum said he supports increased Internet regulation. According to Santorum, our rights aren’t “absolute” and stop at whatever point their exercise begins to infringe on the rights of others. Piracy represents an abuse of intellectual property rights — and that abuse should have consequences, Santorum says.

So far, so good. Everybody agrees that piracy is a problem.

But Santorum seems too ready to look to regulation for the solution to the piracy problem, suggesting that government interference might be an effective way to thwart piraters. That, to me, seems short-sighted, given that rampant piracy is at its core an indication of inferior service from legal sellers. Let actors, musicians and others whose intellectual property is routinely ripped off come up with a more effective way to serve customers and, suddenly, piracy won’t be such a problem. Take a look at the example of comedian Louis C.K. whose faith in his fan base and willingness to offer his product in an innovative manner has been richly rewarded.

Thankfully, Santorum stopped short of a full-throated endorsement of the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act. (He isn’t familiar enough with provisions of that bill to have an opinion about it one way or the other, he said.) But that the first solution to piracy he can fathom involves more regulation is still troubling.

By “piracy,” I believe MOST on the Right — at least as to the current GOP candidates — are referring to the threat from China and certain .ru-iskies.

That’s probably true. And piracy from countries like China is a legitimate threat, and also something legitimate for the federal government to deal with. However, the solutions that are being proposed are not appropriately limited to dealing with that specific international problem, but grant the government broad, far-reaching powers. And we cannot trust any administration, Republican or Democrat, with those types of powers.

I’m pretty sure regulations drive more people into piracy and the black market.

cmsciulli on January 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM

More like the need to not pay for what they want…

Seriously, I agree about the bane of regulations and over-pricing, but as to regulations being labelled the bad deed that “drives” some people to illicit acts, well, I disagree. A moral, ethical individual won’t steal even when they really, really want something that’s “just sitting there unattended” while an amoral, unethical person will, while they wrongly deem their behavior justified because “someone left it there unattended.”

Okay, how about ‘Less Intercourse and No Internet’, because banning contraception will lead to less sex and all I ever hear is that SOPA will kill the Internet altogether. So while Santorum may know what the Internet is, if he ever gets SOPA or worse through we would’ve wished he hadn’t.

Let actors, musicians and others whose intellectual property is routinely ripped off come up with a more effective way to serve customers and, suddenly, piracy won’t be such a problem.

So, basically, it’s the victim’s fault that thieves are stealiing from them, lol. Sheesh. And could you be more naive?

Take a look at the example of comedian Louis C.K. whose faith in his fan base and willingness to offer his product in an innovative manner has been richly rewarded.

His product is available for free all over the internet, just like those using “less innovative” methods.

Quite frankly I’m not sure why repulicans care about Hollywood piracy, after all its just that much less money the libs get to throw at us.

Iblis

It’s called having principles. Wrong is wrong, no matter the victim.

Having said that, there’s no need for SOPA, or any other new regulations. Stealing intellectual property is already illegal, and there are already rules on the books that allow one to get illegal content taken down.

Conservatives have gotten rolled on these “moral” issues before. Take a look at IMBRA and UIGEA. I am not saying condone stealing but be careful what power you are giving gov’t. SOPA gives way too much power to gov’t and Santorum seems to side with the nanny staters.

Having said that, there’s no need for SOPA, or any other new regulations. Stealing intellectual property is already illegal, and there are already rules on the books that allow one to get illegal content taken down.

Okay, how about ‘Less Intercourse and No Internet’, because banning contraception will lead to less sex and all I ever hear is that SOPA will kill the Internet altogether. So while Santorum may know what the Internet is, if he ever gets SOPA or worse through we would’ve wished he hadn’t.

The Nerve on January 9, 2012 at 3:33 PM

He ALSO has not said he supports “banning contraception.”

Santorum HAS said that he thinks it’s a states’ rights issue, that states should be able to decide for themselves, respectively, what’s-what as to contraception.

He was really clear and concise about that in the last debate especially. As was Romney, also, along those lines.

The whole denigration of the GOP candidates about these False Flag Assumptions (“FFAs”) is such time-wasting. Maybe that’s why they’re being made and perpetuated, but it doesn’t make them truthful statements.

A quick perusal of the SOPA legislation shows that it is a trojan horse for unlimited regulation of all websites, or portions thereof, whatever that means.

While Santorum dodged the issue of SOPA itself, his response gave no comfort that he would actually educate himself before supporting it in the form that it is in, which would be a crippling blow to the internet.

The claim is made that something needs to be done about the internet. First, it’s not clear that is true. Second, there can be several approaches to respond to that. Making websites be invitations to lawsuits would flush the baby with the bathwater.

If people want to make a living selling digital content, it should be up to them to protect their property in some way other than crippling the internet. Santorum could have said that without taking a position on SOPA.

Consider this, however. If a President Santorum had a fresh Republican Congress in 2013, would that alliance pass SOPA? I don’t think so.

Lindsey Graham might join forces with a Democrat to introduce such legislation, but the tenor of Congress and the character of the White House would militate against passing it. Democrats push a lot of things when they’re in power that Republicans are never going to push or take leadership on. There are Republicans who go ahead and vote for Democratic bills for various reasons, some of them shabby or stupid, but those Republicans are unlikely to prioritize the same issues when they get control.

I see Santorum in the same light I see the rest of them: his mind hasn’t adjusted to the fact that we are no longer inhabiting the USA in which the Reagan consensus could be successful. The goodwill and virtue aren’t there, to keep government programs and regulations from becoming methods of ruling the people against their will. Government as the automatic solution to everything has to go: no one will ever be virtuous enough to operate honestly in such an environment.

I don’t think any of the candidates really see this. Perry’s attitude toward federal regulation is the one most suited to halting our progress down the slippery slope, but I perceive him to be an old consensus guy himself. He governs Texas, where the old consensus still rules in much of the state.

None of the GOP candidates has a healthy enough fear of the often unintended imperialism of the regulatory state. I think we’ll have to wait a few more years to grow a crop of candidates who do.

I have a tough choice here. Do I support Santorum who may want to regulate the internet, or the party that invented the internet?

they lie on January 9, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I’d be really happy if it were possible for certain IPAs and other bad individuals from the likes of China, not to mention Australia and the UK and our own nation (meaning, anywhere and everywhere but there ARE certain concentrations of this bad behavior in certain locales) to be easily identified and held to task as to the damages they do to society by way of theft and other scurrilous deeds using the veil of anonymity and gullible end users.

I loathe — and I do mean, LOATHE — spammers and the hack=crappers but most of the former do what they do by way of the latter and the latter is their ultimate goal. These are not good people and they do wreak great harms upon others.

Maybe that’s the problem Santorum is referring to, not to barkoloungers who want to keep their flow of P0rnn flowing.

I’d be really happy if it were possible for certain IPAs and other bad individuals from the likes of China, not to mention Australia and the UK and our own nation (meaning, anywhere and everywhere but there ARE certain concentrations of this bad behavior in certain locales) to be easily identified and held to task as to the damages they do to society by way of theft and other scurrilous deeds using the veil of anonymity and gullible end users…

Not ALL regulation or use of government is ‘bad’ or inherently wrong. Perhaps that’s what Santorum is saying, generally, while he is also refusing to support the evil application of government such as is H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act.

Lourdes on January 9, 2012 at 3:22 PM

Regulation is inherently bad just by its nature. It is one thing to make something criminal, it is another to regulate it. SOPA does nothing to define piracy, but it regulates the internet. And Santorum obviously envisions some sort of regulatory solution even if it isn’t SOPA.

This is where the government can probably help the most. It is almost impossible to go after pirates in many countries. And if those countries harboring pirates refuse to act, then our government has a responsibility to bring some sort of economic sanctions.

SOPA is second only to the Patriot Act in violating Americans’ protections and liberties under the Bill of Rights. It, too, is a disgrace to America and every member of CONgress – or others – that supports it (and the Patriot Act) should be put in prison (or subject to death) for high treason.

Tina,
This post grossly misrepresents what Santorum said and meant. I know you are only about 24 years of age, but surely you can read and hear as well as the rest of us.

Santorum identified piracy as an abuse of one’s rights. While acknowledging that the internet can be “a powerful force for good,” he argued that making it a “regulation-free zone” would be the wrong approach. He did not specifically say that he endorsed SOPA, given that he admitted he is not very aware of the bill’s provisions. But he did give an incredibly forceful argument for cracking down on piracy and the unrestrained right to do whatever you want on the internet.

Santorum went on to say that he believes internet regulation must be balanced, respectful, well-vetted and well-discussed. Regulation should not be an either/or proposition especially for Commerce.

Santorum DID say that he favored regulation for the purpose of preventing abuse of private property and child pornography, and content that would seriously undermine American values.

It doesn’t matter. Romney is the chosen one. There are too many non-Romneys splitting the votes, and by the time it is down to one non-Romney, those undecideds (the mindless sit com watching crowd) will choose Romney because they think he’s “the most electable.”

Regulation is inherently bad just by its nature. It is one thing to make something criminal, it is another to regulate it. SOPA does nothing to define piracy, but it regulates the internet. And Santorum obviously envisions some sort of regulatory solution even if it isn’t SOPA.

NotCoach on January 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM

I missed that part from Santorum whereby he said he supported SOPA. As in, that’s not true based upon what I’ve heard from and read about the man (he doesn’t support SOPA).

SOME regulations work toward a good goal, to benefit civilization, to keep the world at least somewhat safer and better than it would be otherwise. If you don’t agree, please, go to Mexico or Iran and Afghanistan and look around at what “a regulation free” country/civilization looks like and is.

I don’t like regulations. I don’t like being told that I have to use the gas in my vehicles that is made available to me by regulated industries, or that I can’t use whatever-whenever just because I may prefer banana-peels instead of octane-whatnot (just an example, I’m not opposed to petroleum products to keep my vehicles running).

But all I’m saying is that Santorum doesn’t support SOPA and hasn’t said that he does, while he IS expressing the reality that some regulations (use of government to form parameters by which markets operate, by which goods are produced and delivered and offered to consumers) are necessary to resolve certain problems.

It is THE EXTENT of regulations that is the issue. Why jump to the worst conclusions about Santorum when that isn’t supported by his statements? SOME regulation works to our benefit, too much of it and a reliance on it rather than individual liberty/actions is wrong.

well i hope he researches more on SOPA and comes up with an answer later. i want to know if he (and other candidates) support it! obviously a person doesn’t have the right to steal something from someone else, which is what SOPA is trying to prevent. but i want to know if he specifically supports SOPA. if so, that’s a problem!

Of course he does he is just a nanny statist who is running on just using he massive government to promote his beliefs, just like obama.

He doesn’t believe in individual freedom, he’s already said as much.

cpaulus on January 9, 201

You are right, he is a total statist who thinks any problems we have, automatically require a solution of more government involvement.

Its rare that a problem is because of not enough government in our lives. He is quite far from a traditional small government Republican.

If the Democrats had not made social conservatives Persona Non Grata, he would probably be one of them. But instead they came to the GOP, and want to remake it into a social conservative nanny state party. Many of them never actually believed in the small government ideal behind the Republican Party, they just looked for a new home for social conservatism.

And those social conservatives then tell everyone that if you are not one of them, you are a RINO.

SOME regulations work toward a good goal, to benefit civilization, to keep the world at least somewhat safer and better than it would be otherwise. If you don’t agree, please, go to Mexico or Iran and Afghanistan and look around at what “a regulation free” country/civilization looks like and is.

Lourdes on January 9, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Lawlessness, corruption and tyranny are not the same things as deregulation. If any of those countries were rule of law countries then we could compare them, but they aren’t. For all we know they each have the most strict regulation regimes in the world, on paper. But when the rule of law is not a foundation of a society paper rules mean nothing.

And you are picking nits on whether Santorum supports SOPA or not. It is clear to me he supports some sort of internet regulation whether it be SOPA or some other awful law.

I know. But it makes me extremely nervous when he talks about morals and internet pron. I can see him banning it. Honestly, can’t you see him at least highly restricting it?

Bill C on January 9, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Since you acknowledge that Santorum doesn’t support SOPA, then, please, try to stop suggesting that he does.

And, I’m not too concerned about “regulating p0rn” because I have never had to face the moment when I wondered where it was or if I’d be able to lather myself in it, or want to. Just never been a concern of mine except once when I stopped by a local library and tried to check my email on one of their terminals and found myself replacing a scurrilous looking guy departing the keyboard who left me with a wad of sites loading and reloading with pictures of offensive behinds engaged in various abuses.

My point with that story is that to those who are hooked into that sort of content, not being able to remain so seems like an outrageous trauma, while to other people, it’s moreorless a problem that we’d prefer not to have to interact with, at home, at work, in the library, wherever.

Santorum nor no one can “regulate” the internet in such a fashion to demand one area of content over another, one access over another, not really. We can implement connections and how those connections are used by regulation, but, not specifically unless damages are inflicted on others such as in national security and defense and theft of intellectual property.

Perhaps you all who want your access to p0rn to remain unabated should form some sort of campaign to protect the endurance of that content and try to separate the other important issues of security and defense and theft of other crimes from the issue of p0rn.

But you joking about concentration camps and your parents’ religious affiliations isn’t?

I disagree with you that Santorum is “not a conservative.” He isn’t a Paul Outlaw from the Institution, that’s all.

Gingrich is far more a “big government” guy, just for starters. I’m not sure what Perry is because he continues to declare himself as confused.

Though I agree with Perry that government should be downsized, while, even for Perry as to Texas, he is faced with security and defense and crime statistics that make the best of us blush, and Perry continues to hype himself as big on those ‘government’ uses…so, he’s a big government guy where it’s convenient.

That is straight up statism. He then goes on to say that the founders did not believe in individual responsibility, instead, they believed in subsuming the individual for the sake of society. That article is right, you change a couple words here or there and it could easily be Obama saying that. Voting for Santorum is basically saying you want someone who will make the government control our lives in a fashion better than Obama, not someone who thinks we should have the freedom to live and make the most out of our lives.

And you are picking nits on whether Santorum supports SOPA or not. It is clear to me he supports some sort of internet regulation whether it be SOPA or some other awful law.

NotCoach on January 9, 2012 at 3:59 PM

No, not at ALL (not “picking nits”).

SOPA is extreme and outrageous. It’s one thing to jump from a speed limit of 225 mph to one of 25 mph: the driver can’t nor shouldn’t be expected to handle such a radical shift from one situation to the other.

SOPA is unnecessary and just wrong. We don’t need such extensive interruption via overdone regulation of the internet and I think so far that just about everyone’s agreed with that (that it’s outrageous, over regulation that’s not necessary, not needed, unwelcome and wrong).

My hunch is that most in federal government, as I’ve been saying here all along, are focused on the national security and defense issues of the internet and I agree that we need more working to make that stronger than it is — how I can’t say but even from a firsthand user perspective, I can readily attest to a great deal of creepy and unwelcome intrusions by bad people into my ability to use the internet, so I can imagine to what extent profound locations experience such.

Santorum DID say that he favored regulation for the purpose of preventing… content that would seriously undermine American values.

Tina, your problem with this is?

Sparky5253 on January 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The problem is: who gets to decide what content would “seriously undermine American values”?

I’m pretty sure that Obama and Pelosi would be eager to regulate a lot of conservative content as “hate speech”. For his part, Santorum has shown a creepy inclination to regulate issues relating to sexuality, including contraception.

Gingrich is far more a “big government” guy, just for starters. I’m not sure what Perry is because he continues to declare himself as confused.

He’s such a big government guy that he’s the only Speaker of the House to have actually shrunk the size of government since FDR. Engaging in debate and hypotheticals is much different than policy. When it comes to policy accomplishments while in office he’s by far the most accomplished conservative in the race.

Gingrich is far more a “big government” guy, just for starters. I’m not sure what Perry is because he continues to declare himself as confused.

Lourdes on January 9, 2012 at 4:10 PM

He’s such a big government guy that he’s the only Speaker of the House to have actually shrunk the size of government since FDR. Engaging in debate and hypotheticals is much different than policy. When it comes to policy accomplishments while in office he’s by far the most accomplished conservative in the race.

cpaulus on January 9, 2012 at 4:19 PM

I pointed out there the often-absurd (and inaccurate, accordingly) deployment by some (here, elsewhere) of certain terms that may sound big and meaningful but are inappropriate if not often absurd when applied to individuals, groups, etc.

Calling someone “big government” — just as “Crony Capitalist” and other terms — doesn’t fly when you examine closely, and specifically, individual records.

Instead, these terms are used today by some to denigrate others, as in, the contemporary pejoratives, without real context or accuracy. They’re the contemporary political nonsense of calling someone else an a@@ or similar.

It’s illiteracy, unfortunately, under guise of “big sounding, intelligent sounding, words and expressions” that are, instead, bordering on jibberish WHEN specifics about individuals is examined — unfortunately, the specifics aren’t and too many just leap into these words/terms as pejoratives instead. It’s a big part of why the Right loses elections.

Santorum DID say that he favored regulation for the purpose of preventing… content that would seriously undermine American values.

Tina, your problem with this is?

Sparky5253 on January 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

The problem is: who gets to decide what content would “seriously undermine American values”?

I’m pretty sure that Obama and Pelosi would be eager to regulate a lot of conservative content as “hate speech”. For his part, Santorum has shown a creepy inclination to regulate issues relating to sexuality, including contraception.

cool breeze on January 9, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Well, YOU may think it’s O.K. to see Muslims brutalizing themselves and others, but I don’t. Animal cruelty, child p0rnography, things such as these are utterly disgusting and I agree that they should receive harsher “regulation” on the internet.

But, it’s a case of who does that regulation — the IPAs, site admins and/or the government. Hopefully, individual action will resolve these problems (individuals acting responsibly) but just recall that there are people among us who find that sort of content worthwhile.

So, who decides what is available and what isn’t? I think most people, like the post says, consider piracy wrong, but at what point are the rest wrong? And who says what is?

Perhaps that’s the summation of what Santorum is expressing, that there are things that shouldn’t be readily available, if at all, nor behaviors accepted. I don’t have a problem with that point of view, if that’s his message, while I’m also not leaping into assuming that he’s considering some Big Santorum Switch to prevent access. I think he’s acknowledging that some content shouldn’t be available and I agree with that.

From a legal standpoint that is correct. The federal government certainly has no responsibility to empower people to do what pleases them most. You are conflating two ideas here. Denying rights and guaranteeing them are not the same thing. And no one has a guaranteed right to happiness, only the right to pursue it. But state government is different.

Whether you like it or not the Founders never imagined that the states would not be able to impose their own moral codes. The 10th Amendment is actually very specific even if modern day courts want to pretend it doesn’t exist. These rights or prohibitions not enumerated means just that. From a correct reading of the Constitution states certainly have the right to deny such things as contraception.

The invented idea that contraception is a right is born out of the invented and false idea that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. The real question is whether Santorum wishes to impose these moral codes at the federal, or whether he wishes to promote the idea that the states can do so themselves. If the former he is wrong. If the later he is correct.

The internet is the last “free” frontier, give the govt an inch through that door….

And please. Don’t even give the “child pr0n” crap line. That’s still illegal regardless of whether or not you are printing the photos and selling them from your rusty old pedo-van or if you’re downloading them from a skeezy website. Illegal is illegal. There’s no such thing as EXTRA illegal.

It’s not the “state’s” place to “empower” any individual, or not to. It’s an issue of personal responsibility.

Lourdes on January 9, 2012 at 4:20 PM

From a legal standpoint that is correct. The federal government certainly has no responsibility to empower people to do what pleases them most. You are conflating two ideas here. Denying rights and guaranteeing them are not the same thing. And no one has a guaranteed right to happiness, only the right to pursue it. But state government is different.

That is definitely not what he means. He’s not saying that he doesn’t think the state should empower people, he’s saying that people in general should not be empowered. People become empowered when they have the freedom to pursue happiness. Santorum believes that people should only be allowed pursue happiness if they fall under the rubric of what he defines as happiness.

If you fight by lying about what others believe, say, intend and plan to do, then, you’re not winning that there fight.

Some of us aren’t too concerned about your ‘right to’ such, however. Keep that in mind.

Lourdes on January 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM

I never said he supported SOPA. I did say his talk about morals and pron made me nervous because busybodies like to stick their noses in other people’s business and Santorum is a busybody. BTW, busybody often means someone who likes to judge others and you seem to be that type of person.

Whatever happened to the sticky magazines? Didn’t they satisfy?

Lourdes on January 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM

No, I’ve grown up and moved onto webcams and hoookers. Now I am imagining you saying, “Ewwww.”

The invented idea that contraception is a right is born out of the invented and false idea that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. The real question is whether Santorum wishes to impose these moral codes at the federal, or whether he wishes to promote the idea that the states can do so themselves. If the former he is wrong. If the later he is correct.

I don’t know why people, Stephanopolis, and now you, keep bringing up contraception. There is no state that is even talking about restricting contraception. You can take your guess as to whether Santorum wants to do these things federally: he wanted Congress to do something regarding the Terri Schiavo case and is running for president, not governor.

I don’t know why people, Stephanopolis, and now you, keep bringing up contraception. There is no state that is even talking about restricting contraception. You can take your guess as to whether Santorum wants to do these things federally: he wanted Congress to do something regarding the Terri Schiavo case and is running for president, not governor.

cpaulus on January 9, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I was using contraception as a convenient example. But contraception is, unfortunately, a federal issue as well because of Griswold v. Connecticut. No state can outlaw contraceptives because of that wrong headed ruling. Griswold v. Connecticut was also a foundational case for the later invented right to kill babies. Hugo Black’s dissent in Griswold is very prescient for he saw rulings like Roe v. Wade coming down the pike with this invented notion of constitutional privacy that Griswold created. I think his dissent in Griswold is probably required reading for all conservative lawyers.

Hugo Black in dissent: “I do not believe that we are granted power to measure constitutionality by our belief that the legislation is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or accomplishes no justifiable purpose, or is offensive to our own notions of civilized standards of conduct.”

No Internet regulations are necessary.
If you are found guilty of piracy, then you are convicted & pay the price, whatever that is.
But there is no reason to regulate the Internet bcs people are committing crimes.
This is EXACTLY like writing laws to say it’s illegal to text and drive.
Driving impaired, whether you’re drunk, texting, giving your passenger a bl@# j0$, applying your make-up or reading your Kindle/NOOK should all be under the category of: Reckless Driving.
Want stiffer penalties for a certain offense?
Fine.
But no new laws or regs are necessary.
This is why I have always hesitated to be very socially conservative in politics.
The a-holes on the left are controlling enough.
The road to he!! is paved with good intentions.
And all of those do-gooder social conservatives are leading us to he!! and smiling at us all the way.
For those of you on the far right willing to impose your version of what is right, eff you.
If you just went by the Constitution, our liberties would not be eroded like they are now.
Thanks a lot, all of you jerks who think this is all a good idea.

rampant piracy is at its core an indication of inferior service from legal sellers.

No, rampant piracy is at its core an indication of the human tendency to steal from each other when we can get away with it. To blame the victim for it is a rationalization for theft. If someone is charging too much for his or her movie, TV show or music, don’t buy it. Simple. If you take it without paying for it, you are a thief, and should be treated as such.

Santorum advocates Big Government in our daily lives. Buh-bye, Santorum! I will always say he is rock solid on abortion, but he is in love with Big Brother regulating and telling us what to do. Newt’s the same way. They both think that Big Government is the answer to every problem. It’s tyrannical.

I’m voting for the guy who says, “I want to make Washington, DC. as inconsequential in your lives as possible”, and the guy who says that here is “too much regulation, too much lititagation, and too many taxes”. IOW, the opposite of a Big Government loving politician.

What is this guy smoking? Is that the plan? To just do and say everything wrong leading up to the primary? No biggie for me. He ranks just below Bachmann in popularity. Oh wait, is she still in it, or not? No matter…

Okay, let it be official now that were Santorum to somehow win the primaries, I’ll vote for Obama and drink myself into delirium afterwards. May all men and women of Iowa who voted for this pinhead never see an erection again.

Archivarix on January 9, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Or alternatively, since he’s banning both porn and condoms, we’ll see plenty of never ending erections. Santorum’s truly diabolical endgame.

I don’t, so your argument is a logical fallacy. Intellectual property is an arbitrary, government-mandated monopoly. Take a look at the debate about intellectual property, and the sham it is, sometime.

And all of those do-gooder social conservatives are leading us to he!! and smiling at us all the way.
For those of you on the far right willing to impose your version of what is right, eff you.
If you just went by the Constitution, our liberties would not be eroded like they are now.
Thanks a lot, all of you jerks who think this is all a good idea.

Badger40 on January 9, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Clarity, finally!! I’d like to see a list of all of the laws/regulations that are now in effect that violate our rights. It would be quite surprising.

And all of those do-gooder social conservatives are leading us to he!! and smiling at us all the way.
For those of you on the far right willing to impose your version of what is right, eff you.
If you just went by the Constitution, our liberties would not be eroded like they are now.
Thanks a lot, all of you jerks who think this is all a good idea.

Faux conservatives suggesting laws for the government to enforce because they fear ” piracy “, never cease to amaze me because they so readily trade their rights for “supposed” relief from some imagined infringements upon same.

Fine them. Taking someones money ALWAYS gets their attention.

Santorum is definitely done after this stupid nonsense. He had no shot with me anyway.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Santorum is right — to the extent that he advocates robust copyright and patent protection via our legal system. The securement of copyright and patent rights falls squarely on the shoulders of the Federal Government.

The Founders decided that these rights were so important that they wrote them into the Constitution as one of the legislative functions of Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Of course, such rights were considered as being granted by the Government, and disputes to be adjudicated in the courts.

SOPA requires private third parties to proactively enforce copyright law without compensation, and with immunity for any errant actions. This is very bad law — almost as bad as its predicessor, DMCA. At least DMCA provided a means for a person to dispute a claimed copyright either wholly or by claiming a fair use exemption — SOPA provides no such vehicle, and is obviously a tool which can be used to curtail free speech.

Hopefully neither Santorum nor any other Republican nominee will cross that line:

Its a non issue compared to what is going on. Most ISP’s for software pirates are in countries these laws couldn’t touch anyway such as Sweden. What a waste of time to even legislate, you cannot stop the signal ever.Good luck telling China anything when they own much of our debt.

When they really try, the free market comes up with perfectly good solutions on their own. Record companies wanted us to buy a CD with 1 or 2 good songs and 8 or 9 ‘filler’ songs. iTunes makes it possible to buy the songs you want for 99 cents without having to purchase the entire CD.

Do we REALLY want Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Janet Incompetano deciding which internet sites are OK and which are not?

Let actors, musicians and others whose intellectual property is routinely ripped off come up with a more effective way to serve customers and, suddenly, piracy won’t be such a problem.

Sorry, Tina, but that’s a crock. Piracy happens because people are too self-centered to pay for something if someone else can give it to them for less – or for free. Piracy will happen because there are a-holes out there that think “information should be free” and other imbecilic catch-phrases.

SOPA might be (ok, it definitely is) the wrong way to stop IP piracy (and the current IP laws certainly don’t help), but it does need the government to stop piracy – as it’s illegal to steal.

The industries concerned with this might do better with a free-market approach to catching the pirates, though: offer a bounty (free or discounted software/music/whatever) to people who offer up evidence usable in a court of law to convict a pirate. Then they use the legal system to convict the pirate and punish him.

Piracy happens because people are too self-centered to pay for something if someone else can give it to them for less – or for free. Piracy will happen because there are a-holes out there that think “information should be free” and other imbecilic catch-phrases.

SOPA might be (ok, it definitely is) the wrong way to stop IP piracy (and the current IP laws certainly don’t help), but it does need the government to stop piracy – as it’s illegal to steal.

The industries concerned with this might do better with a free-market approach to catching the pirates, though: offer a bounty (free or discounted software/music/whatever) to people who offer up evidence usable in a court of law to convict a pirate. Then they use the legal system to convict the pirate and punish him.

GWB on January 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Actually, that’s a crock as well. People are sharing their property and choosing what to do with their own property. This is not piracy; this is not theft. Intellectual property is a crock – it is a government-mandated monopoly.

There is no such thing as a solution to piracy that relies on making the experience of buying and using said intellectual property WORSE for the paying customer than for the pirates. And now it isn’t bad enough to just affect the music or software by adding draconian (yet ineffective) digital rights management. No, NOW we want to affect the internet experience of every person in the US to do it.

That, right there, is a HORRENDOUS idea.

But Rick Santorum is not a big government nanny statist for supporting it. Nah.

And, you’re the kind of moron who helps make the argument for things like SOPA, because they can point to you as the reason for it.

I’ll repeat myself, with an addendum: Piracy will happen because there are a-holes out there that think “information should be free” and other imbecilic catch-phrases (like “Intellectual property is a crock – it is a government-mandated monopoly.”).

Piracy of hip-hop and bad movies are a huge problem to whom? I can think of 150 things I’m deeply concerned about, including the Pirates of the Middle East, and this doesn’t even make the list.

There will always be “pirates”. I remember my husband once bought a tape of a new movie from some guy at the corner of C and New Jersey Avenue. Some person had actually taken an old VCR camera into the theater and filmed the movie. It was sooooooo bad.

Anyone wants to record a movie, they just wait a couple of weeks and it will be on TV someplace.

Piracy happens because people are too self-centered to pay for something if someone else can give it to them for less – or for free. Piracy will happen because there are a-holes out there that think “information should be free” and other imbecilic catch-phrases.

I remember some romance authors making the argument that used book stores ought to be illegal. I remember the “industry” trying to stop the manufacture of a double-tape VCR. The genie is out of the bottle and going after the guy on the street corner is not at all the same as going after the person who records a song or a movie owned by a friend. And the “intellectual” argument when applied to the new music and movies is pretty funny.

And the software argument? I wish someone had stolen and tested the new Word programs before they got foisted on an unsuspecting public with your tax dollars. They are an absolute disaster.

How bad the material is is irrelevant. And, the only difference difference between the guy selling pirated DVDs on the street corner and the guy who copies his friend’s mp3 is one of quantity – it’s still theft. Of course, the guy digitally ripping DVDs and placing them out on BitTorrent is probably the worst of all by that argument, as his quantity is higher than the others.

And, how did Word get “foisted” on us using tax dollars? Did MS promise it would come with solar panels, or something? Is SOPA going to come onto your computer and delete your OpenOffice installation now?

And, you’re the kind of moron who helps make the argument for things like SOPA, because they can point to you as the reason for it.

I’ll repeat myself, with an addendum: Piracy will happen because there are a-holes out there that think “information should be free” and other imbecilic catch-phrases (like “Intellectual property is a crock – it is a government-mandated monopoly.”).